Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

The Paradox Of The Stone Is Self-Refuting

Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 8:36:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 8:09:04 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

The Paradox Of The Stone should be removed from the internet. It's dumb.

Perhaps.......

You know what is even dumber ? God of the gaps.........

There is omnipotence in the sense of being able to do anything (logical contradictions included)

Then there is omnipotence in the sense of being able to do anything other than logical impossibilities.

If your using the term omnipotence when referring to these two different things in your argument your open to the charge of equivocation.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 8:38:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'm not using the fallacy of equivocation. If you read the debate, you'd see that I argued about 2 scenarios where different definitions of omnipotence are used.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Pareidolic-Dreamer
Posts: 84
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2014 12:01:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 8:09:04 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

The Paradox Of The Stone should be removed from the internet. It's dumb.

I think you are looking at it from the wrong direction.

One thing the paradox shows quite vividly, is that there is a line that logic can not cross.

The paradox of the stone is used as an attempt to refute the existence of God, but instead it shows that BELIEF can not be trumped by logic. I think that's an important piece of understanding.
Logic is not the single most important tool in the human mind.
IMHO, belief is as important as logic. Belief incites emotion and emotion incites action.

Logic, by the way, cares nothing about REALITY. You can build a logical path to explain why only the green aliens eat fish, and even if the logic is sound, it will not prove that there are indeed fish.
Pareidolic-Dreamer
I see wall people.

When I argue against someone's truths, I always feel like I am arguing just as strongly against my own.
Caploxion
Posts: 454
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 9:05:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 8:09:04 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

The Paradox Of The Stone should be removed from the internet. It's dumb.

As if an omnipotent god can't defy the logic which she makes. What a stupid argument that plays on semantics.
"That's what people do. They breed, and then their children breed, and then their children do it, and their children do it. But, have you ever asked why we do it?" - Jim 'Metamorphhh' Crawford

"There is no doubt that life is given us, not to be enjoyed, but to be overcome; to be got over." - Arthur Schopenhauer

"It's like building a broken building, repairing it and then saying that now I have value in doing so...but it didn't need to be broken in the first place." -Gary 'Inmendham' Mosher
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 9:06:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/16/2014 9:05:01 PM, Caploxion wrote:
At 1/12/2014 8:09:04 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

The Paradox Of The Stone should be removed from the internet. It's dumb.

As if an omnipotent god can't defy the logic which she makes. What a stupid argument that plays on semantics.

I don't understand. Are you agreeing with me or my opponent?
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Caploxion
Posts: 454
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 9:09:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/16/2014 9:06:54 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/16/2014 9:05:01 PM, Caploxion wrote:
At 1/12/2014 8:09:04 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

The Paradox Of The Stone should be removed from the internet. It's dumb.

As if an omnipotent god can't defy the logic which she makes. What a stupid argument that plays on semantics.

I don't understand. Are you agreeing with me or my opponent?

Do you even know what you're arguing?
"That's what people do. They breed, and then their children breed, and then their children do it, and their children do it. But, have you ever asked why we do it?" - Jim 'Metamorphhh' Crawford

"There is no doubt that life is given us, not to be enjoyed, but to be overcome; to be got over." - Arthur Schopenhauer

"It's like building a broken building, repairing it and then saying that now I have value in doing so...but it didn't need to be broken in the first place." -Gary 'Inmendham' Mosher
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 9:11:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/16/2014 9:09:55 PM, Caploxion wrote:
At 1/16/2014 9:06:54 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/16/2014 9:05:01 PM, Caploxion wrote:
At 1/12/2014 8:09:04 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

The Paradox Of The Stone should be removed from the internet. It's dumb.

As if an omnipotent god can't defy the logic which she makes. What a stupid argument that plays on semantics.

I don't understand. Are you agreeing with me or my opponent?

Do you even know what you're arguing?

Obviously, it's the title of the debate.

But again, I don't understand what you said.

Ohhhh... I lost you because you referred to God as "she." Lol.

I don't think it's dumb argument, after all, the whole premise of my debate was that the Paradox is a dumb argument that plays on semantics, so I turned it's semantics against it (or tried)
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Caploxion
Posts: 454
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 9:16:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/16/2014 9:11:47 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/16/2014 9:09:55 PM, Caploxion wrote:
At 1/16/2014 9:06:54 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/16/2014 9:05:01 PM, Caploxion wrote:
At 1/12/2014 8:09:04 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

The Paradox Of The Stone should be removed from the internet. It's dumb.

As if an omnipotent god can't defy the logic which she makes. What a stupid argument that plays on semantics.

I don't understand. Are you agreeing with me or my opponent?

Do you even know what you're arguing?

Obviously, it's the title of the debate.

But again, I don't understand what you said.

Ohhhh... I lost you because you referred to God as "she." Lol.

I don't think it's dumb argument, after all, the whole premise of my debate was that the Paradox is a dumb argument that plays on semantics, so I turned it's semantics against it (or tried)

You're the one playing a semantics game. The paradox only uses one definition, whilst you seem to play around with a couple. Furthermore, all these extra connotations added to omnipotence also make for a semantics game.
"That's what people do. They breed, and then their children breed, and then their children do it, and their children do it. But, have you ever asked why we do it?" - Jim 'Metamorphhh' Crawford

"There is no doubt that life is given us, not to be enjoyed, but to be overcome; to be got over." - Arthur Schopenhauer

"It's like building a broken building, repairing it and then saying that now I have value in doing so...but it didn't need to be broken in the first place." -Gary 'Inmendham' Mosher
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 9:19:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/16/2014 9:16:08 PM, Caploxion wrote:
At 1/16/2014 9:11:47 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/16/2014 9:09:55 PM, Caploxion wrote:
At 1/16/2014 9:06:54 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/16/2014 9:05:01 PM, Caploxion wrote:
At 1/12/2014 8:09:04 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

The Paradox Of The Stone should be removed from the internet. It's dumb.

As if an omnipotent god can't defy the logic which she makes. What a stupid argument that plays on semantics.

I don't understand. Are you agreeing with me or my opponent?

Do you even know what you're arguing?

Obviously, it's the title of the debate.

But again, I don't understand what you said.

Ohhhh... I lost you because you referred to God as "she." Lol.

I don't think it's dumb argument, after all, the whole premise of my debate was that the Paradox is a dumb argument that plays on semantics, so I turned it's semantics against it (or tried)

You're the one playing a semantics game. The paradox only uses one definition, whilst you seem to play around with a couple. Furthermore, all these extra connotations added to omnipotence also make for a semantics game.

The paradox doesn't clarify which definition is used. I argued considering both as separate scenarios, in case the proponent of the Paradox tried to use 2 definitions
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Caploxion
Posts: 454
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 9:40:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/16/2014 9:19:08 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/16/2014 9:16:08 PM, Caploxion wrote:
At 1/16/2014 9:11:47 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/16/2014 9:09:55 PM, Caploxion wrote:
At 1/16/2014 9:06:54 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/16/2014 9:05:01 PM, Caploxion wrote:
At 1/12/2014 8:09:04 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

The Paradox Of The Stone should be removed from the internet. It's dumb.

As if an omnipotent god can't defy the logic which she makes. What a stupid argument that plays on semantics.

I don't understand. Are you agreeing with me or my opponent?

Do you even know what you're arguing?

Obviously, it's the title of the debate.

But again, I don't understand what you said.

Ohhhh... I lost you because you referred to God as "she." Lol.

I don't think it's dumb argument, after all, the whole premise of my debate was that the Paradox is a dumb argument that plays on semantics, so I turned it's semantics against it (or tried)

You're the one playing a semantics game. The paradox only uses one definition, whilst you seem to play around with a couple. Furthermore, all these extra connotations added to omnipotence also make for a semantics game.

The paradox doesn't clarify which definition is used. I argued considering both as separate scenarios, in case the proponent of the Paradox tried to use 2 definitions

How can it then be logical to believe in a such god?
"That's what people do. They breed, and then their children breed, and then their children do it, and their children do it. But, have you ever asked why we do it?" - Jim 'Metamorphhh' Crawford

"There is no doubt that life is given us, not to be enjoyed, but to be overcome; to be got over." - Arthur Schopenhauer

"It's like building a broken building, repairing it and then saying that now I have value in doing so...but it didn't need to be broken in the first place." -Gary 'Inmendham' Mosher
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 9:41:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/16/2014 9:40:36 PM, Caploxion wrote:
At 1/16/2014 9:19:08 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/16/2014 9:16:08 PM, Caploxion wrote:
At 1/16/2014 9:11:47 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/16/2014 9:09:55 PM, Caploxion wrote:
At 1/16/2014 9:06:54 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/16/2014 9:05:01 PM, Caploxion wrote:
At 1/12/2014 8:09:04 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

The Paradox Of The Stone should be removed from the internet. It's dumb.

As if an omnipotent god can't defy the logic which she makes. What a stupid argument that plays on semantics.

I don't understand. Are you agreeing with me or my opponent?

Do you even know what you're arguing?

Obviously, it's the title of the debate.

But again, I don't understand what you said.

Ohhhh... I lost you because you referred to God as "she." Lol.

I don't think it's dumb argument, after all, the whole premise of my debate was that the Paradox is a dumb argument that plays on semantics, so I turned it's semantics against it (or tried)

You're the one playing a semantics game. The paradox only uses one definition, whilst you seem to play around with a couple. Furthermore, all these extra connotations added to omnipotence also make for a semantics game.

The paradox doesn't clarify which definition is used. I argued considering both as separate scenarios, in case the proponent of the Paradox tried to use 2 definitions

How can it then be logical to believe in a such god?

Personally I ascribe to the first scenario, where God can do anything not logically impossible.

I brought up the second scenario only for the purpose of debate.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Caploxion
Posts: 454
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 9:47:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/16/2014 9:41:58 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/16/2014 9:40:36 PM, Caploxion wrote:
At 1/16/2014 9:19:08 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/16/2014 9:16:08 PM, Caploxion wrote:
At 1/16/2014 9:11:47 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/16/2014 9:09:55 PM, Caploxion wrote:
At 1/16/2014 9:06:54 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/16/2014 9:05:01 PM, Caploxion wrote:
At 1/12/2014 8:09:04 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

The Paradox Of The Stone should be removed from the internet. It's dumb.

As if an omnipotent god can't defy the logic which she makes. What a stupid argument that plays on semantics.

I don't understand. Are you agreeing with me or my opponent?

Do you even know what you're arguing?

Obviously, it's the title of the debate.

But again, I don't understand what you said.

Ohhhh... I lost you because you referred to God as "she." Lol.

I don't think it's dumb argument, after all, the whole premise of my debate was that the Paradox is a dumb argument that plays on semantics, so I turned it's semantics against it (or tried)

You're the one playing a semantics game. The paradox only uses one definition, whilst you seem to play around with a couple. Furthermore, all these extra connotations added to omnipotence also make for a semantics game.

The paradox doesn't clarify which definition is used. I argued considering both as separate scenarios, in case the proponent of the Paradox tried to use 2 definitions

How can it then be logical to believe in a such god?

Personally I ascribe to the first scenario, where God can do anything not logically impossible.

Maybe you're right...
"That's what people do. They breed, and then their children breed, and then their children do it, and their children do it. But, have you ever asked why we do it?" - Jim 'Metamorphhh' Crawford

"There is no doubt that life is given us, not to be enjoyed, but to be overcome; to be got over." - Arthur Schopenhauer

"It's like building a broken building, repairing it and then saying that now I have value in doing so...but it didn't need to be broken in the first place." -Gary 'Inmendham' Mosher
tarkovsky
Posts: 212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2014 1:51:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 8:09:04 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

The Paradox Of The Stone should be removed from the internet. It's dumb.

I actually completely disagree with this argument. There is another member of this website (InquireTruth was his name maybe?) who made a more thorough argument but whose thinking subscribed to the same error as yours.

You don't get to presuppose that omnipotence entails only logical or all things even illogical. Though the stone paradox isn't really a paradox, it certainly isn't self refuting. In fact, the stone paradox is only concerned with the logical characteristics of omnipotence. It's really a proof of sorts...
Informally:
Pf (contradiction): Suppose G is omnipotent. Since G is omnipotent if there exists an action, it can be carried out by G. Let S be the set of all actions. So, if s belongs to S then it can be carried out by G. So G can create a stone that G cannot lift. So G cannot lift the stone, but this contradicts with "if s belongs to S then it can be carried out by G". Therefore G is not omnipotent.

Obviously this isn't a formal proof, it's actually kind of silly just looking at it, but it gets the idea across. The stone paradox looks at the logical characteristics of omnipotence. Once you've decided that omnipotence is bounded by logical or is not bounded by logic, you've moved past the point of the paradox which is to demonstrate that very issue (whether or not we should include illogical things). Really though this isn't much of a paradox unless you have some unshakeable faith in the existence of omnipotence. The issue is dispelled by simply throwing out the presumption that omnipotence exists (which is what the example does).
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 4:08:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/24/2014 1:51:30 AM, tarkovsky wrote:
At 1/12/2014 8:09:04 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

The Paradox Of The Stone should be removed from the internet. It's dumb.

I actually completely disagree with this argument. There is another member of this website (InquireTruth was his name maybe?) who made a more thorough argument but whose thinking subscribed to the same error as yours.

You don't get to presuppose that omnipotence entails only logical or all things even illogical. Though the stone paradox isn't really a paradox, it certainly isn't self refuting. In fact, the stone paradox is only concerned with the logical characteristics of omnipotence. It's really a proof of sorts...
Informally:
Pf (contradiction): Suppose G is omnipotent. Since G is omnipotent if there exists an action, it can be carried out by G. Let S be the set of all actions. So, if s belongs to S then it can be carried out by G. So G can create a stone that G cannot lift. So G cannot lift the stone, but this contradicts with "if s belongs to S then it can be carried out by G". Therefore G is not omnipotent.

Obviously this isn't a formal proof, it's actually kind of silly just looking at it, but it gets the idea across. The stone paradox looks at the logical characteristics of omnipotence. Once you've decided that omnipotence is bounded by logical or is not bounded by logic, you've moved past the point of the paradox which is to demonstrate that very issue (whether or not we should include illogical things). Really though this isn't much of a paradox unless you have some unshakeable faith in the existence of omnipotence. The issue is dispelled by simply throwing out the presumption that omnipotence exists (which is what the example does).

I was thinking about this problem for a fair bit. Thanks for helping clarify this for me :)
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 4:48:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/24/2014 1:51:30 AM, tarkovsky wrote:


You don't get to presuppose that omnipotence entails only logical or all things even illogical. Though the stone paradox isn't really a paradox, it certainly isn't self refuting. In fact, the stone paradox is only concerned with the logical characteristics of omnipotence. It's really a proof of sorts...

It is. It sets out to disprove omnipotence by demanding impotence. If God makes a stone he cannot lift, impotence is shown; otherwise, he is impotent: clearly someone thinks making something one can't lift is a sign of potency; it isn't.

Informally:
Pf (contradiction): Suppose G is omnipotent. Since G is omnipotent if there exists an action, it can be carried out by G. Let S be the set of all actions. So, if s belongs to S then it can be carried out by G. So G can create a stone that G cannot lift. So G cannot lift the stone, but this contradicts with "if s belongs to S then it can be carried out by G". Therefore G is not omnipotent.

Let's try this argument. Suppose T can lift all rocks. Since T can lift rocks, if there is a rock T can lift it. Let R be the set of rocks. So, if r belongs to R, T can carry it. Let T pick a rock he cannot lift. So T cannot lift a rock he picks but this contradicts with "if r belongs to R T can carry it". Therefore T cannot lift all rocks.


Obviously this isn't a formal proof, it's actually kind of silly just looking at it, but it gets the idea across. The stone paradox looks at the logical characteristics of omnipotence. Once you've decided that omnipotence is bounded by logical or is not bounded by logic, you've moved past the point of the paradox which is to demonstrate that very issue (whether or not we should include illogical things). Really though this isn't much of a paradox unless you have some unshakeable faith in the existence of omnipotence. The issue is dispelled by simply throwing out the presumption that omnipotence exists (which is what the example does).

And you don't expect me to keep your assumption that God making a rock he can't lift serious. If I said tarkovsky should give himself a name he cannot spell, you shouldn't take me seriously. And if mere man can make machines they cannot lift how much more God ?
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 6:08:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/16/2014 9:05:01 PM, Caploxion wrote:
At 1/12/2014 8:09:04 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

The Paradox Of The Stone should be removed from the internet. It's dumb.

As if an omnipotent god can't defy the logic which she makes. What a stupid argument that plays on semantics.

No-one makes logic. Do you even understand what the word logic means?
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2014 6:22:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 6:08:34 PM, Installgentoo wrote:


No-one makes logic. Do you even understand what the word logic means?

How then does logic come about ?
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2014 6:27:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/26/2014 6:22:59 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 2/24/2014 6:08:34 PM, Installgentoo wrote:


No-one makes logic. Do you even understand what the word logic means?

How then does logic come about ?

Logic exists metaphysically. A is always equal to A. Thelaw of undistributed middle exists without help from mankind. The laws of logic don't change regardless of beings making them up, much like the laws of mathematics.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2014 6:33:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 8:09:04 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

The Paradox Of The Stone should be removed from the internet. It's dumb.

Indeed it is. In order for God to be omnipotent, he must BE omnipotent. That is, he must conform to the laws of logic in order to exist or have qualities of any kind. This means that to be omnipotent is to possess the ability to "do anything possible" (logically consistent). Since God can do anything which is possible, that which he cannot do is not possible, so "creating a stone so big even God cannot move it" is not a possible action, and thus does not present a problem for the possibility of omnipotence.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2014 6:34:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/26/2014 6:27:18 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 2/26/2014 6:22:59 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 2/24/2014 6:08:34 PM, Installgentoo wrote:


No-one makes logic. Do you even understand what the word logic means?

How then does logic come about ?

Logic exists metaphysically. A is always equal to A. Thelaw of undistributed middle exists without help from mankind. The laws of logic don't change regardless of beings making them up, much like the laws of mathematics.

My views are similar but with nuances. The idea of logic existing on it's own is absurd to me. When we refer to logic alone it is with the context of a mind. So I will only agree to logic existing in the mind of an eternal and immutable God.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2014 6:50:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 8:09:04 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

The Paradox Of The Stone should be removed from the internet. It's dumb.

Your argument is false. It's valuable, however, in the sense that both sides of the "can God defy logic" coin support the same, valid conclusion. There's no way out.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2014 7:51:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/26/2014 6:50:21 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/12/2014 8:09:04 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

The Paradox Of The Stone should be removed from the internet. It's dumb.

Your argument is false. It's valuable, however, in the sense that both sides of the "can God defy logic" coin support the same, valid conclusion. There's no way out.

The same is applicable to the paradox. Whether or not God lifts the stone He is NOT omnipotent. All because someone defines Him as such.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2014 8:09:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/26/2014 7:51:08 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 2/26/2014 6:50:21 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/12/2014 8:09:04 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

The Paradox Of The Stone should be removed from the internet. It's dumb.

Your argument is false. It's valuable, however, in the sense that both sides of the "can God defy logic" coin support the same, valid conclusion. There's no way out.


The same is applicable to the paradox. Whether or not God lifts the stone He is NOT omnipotent. All because someone defines Him as such.

I think all this demonstrates is that Omnipotent is a self contradictory or at best, unintelligible property. Since omnipotence implies ability to violate logic, which is impossible to comprehend. So rather than this issue refuting god, It mostly highlights the person describing god doesn't know what they are talking about
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2014 8:36:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/26/2014 7:51:08 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 2/26/2014 6:50:21 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/12/2014 8:09:04 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

The Paradox Of The Stone should be removed from the internet. It's dumb.

Your argument is false. It's valuable, however, in the sense that both sides of the "can God defy logic" coin support the same, valid conclusion. There's no way out.


The same is applicable to the paradox. Whether or not God lifts the stone He is NOT omnipotent. All because someone defines Him as such.

The point is that a "stone too heavy for God to lift" is an incoherent concept, because God is defined as "that which nothing could be too heavy for". While I think that omnipotence could easily and legitimately be defined as "the ability to do anything except the impossible" (since 'anything' literally means any-thing, and things exist, and existence conforms to logic), if someone refused to accept that definition, it's not really an issue.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2014 8:42:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 8:09:04 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

The Paradox Of The Stone should be removed from the internet. It's dumb.

You're being impractical, all combined, there aren't enough programmers, developers, and webmasters in the world to remove everything that's dumb from the internet.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2014 8:47:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/26/2014 8:42:00 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 1/12/2014 8:09:04 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

The Paradox Of The Stone should be removed from the internet. It's dumb.

You're being impractical, all combined, there aren't enough programmers, developers, and webmasters in the world to remove everything that's dumb from the internet.

It was a ploy to get votes, lol.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 5:06:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/26/2014 8:36:34 PM, dylancatlow wrote:


The point is that a "stone too heavy for God to lift" is an incoherent concept, because God is defined as "that which nothing could be too heavy for". While I think that omnipotence could easily and legitimately be defined as "the ability to do anything except the impossible" (since 'anything' literally means any-thing, and things exist, and existence conforms to logic), if someone refused to accept that definition, it's not really an issue.

Your first point makes it clear the paradox is incoherent. 'Anything' refers to things within the bounds of logic; I wouldn't expect God to make a square circle; or the largest number in an infinite series. Once you define 'anything' as 'a stone too heavy to lift', you beg the question of God's impotency within the paradox. You'll simply have to accept that.

To use your thinking against you I can as well say God makes a square circle, and appeal to ignorance. Or I can say that God can create things he cannot lift but can lift them when he wills. Keeping in mind that man routinely makes things he cannot lift. A man can build a house or hut over time which he cannot lift.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 8:27:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/27/2014 5:06:17 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 2/26/2014 8:36:34 PM, dylancatlow wrote:


The point is that a "stone too heavy for God to lift" is an incoherent concept, because God is defined as "that which nothing could be too heavy for". While I think that omnipotence could easily and legitimately be defined as "the ability to do anything except the impossible" (since 'anything' literally means any-thing, and things exist, and existence conforms to logic), if someone refused to accept that definition, it's not really an issue.

Your first point makes it clear the paradox is incoherent. 'Anything' refers to things within the bounds of logic; I wouldn't expect God to make a square circle; or the largest number in an infinite series. Once you define 'anything' as 'a stone too heavy to lift', you beg the question of God's impotency within the paradox. You'll simply have to accept that.


To use your thinking against you I can as well say God makes a square circle, and appeal to ignorance. Or I can say that God can create things he cannot lift but can lift them when he wills. Keeping in mind that man routinely makes things he cannot lift. A man can build a house or hut over time which he cannot lift.

Yes, but God is defined as being "omnipotent", which means he is not restricted in the same way that man is. If we define omnipotence as "the ability to do all possible actions", then God's inability to do X is completely synonymous with "X is impossible". If X is impossible, then God's inability to do X does not mean he lacks omnipotence, since we just defined it as "the ability to do all possible actions", which doesn't require that an omnipotent being have the ability to do the impossible. I hope this is clear to you now.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 9:01:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/27/2014 8:27:24 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 2/27/2014 5:06:17 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 2/26/2014 8:36:34 PM, dylancatlow wrote:


The point is that a "stone too heavy for God to lift" is an incoherent concept, because God is defined as "that which nothing could be too heavy for". While I think that omnipotence could easily and legitimately be defined as "the ability to do anything except the impossible" (since 'anything' literally means any-thing, and things exist, and existence conforms to logic), if someone refused to accept that definition, it's not really an issue.

Your first point makes it clear the paradox is incoherent. 'Anything' refers to things within the bounds of logic; I wouldn't expect God to make a square circle; or the largest number in an infinite series. Once you define 'anything' as 'a stone too heavy to lift', you beg the question of God's impotency within the paradox. You'll simply have to accept that.



To use your thinking against you I can as well say God makes a square circle, and appeal to ignorance. Or I can say that God can create things he cannot lift but can lift them when he wills. Keeping in mind that man routinely makes things he cannot lift. A man can build a house or hut over time which he cannot lift.

Yes, but God is defined as being "omnipotent", which means he is not restricted in the same way that man is. If we define omnipotence as "the ability to do all possible actions", then God's inability to do X is completely synonymous with "X is impossible". If X is impossible, then God's inability to do X does not mean he lacks omnipotence, since we just defined it as "the ability to do all possible actions", which doesn't require that an omnipotent being have the ability to do the impossible. I hope this is clear to you now.

I will tackle this from two perspectives

1) Your claim fails precisely because you don't ask for God's inability to do X. You ask for God ability to NOT do X. You want God to be able to make a stone he is unable to lift. It's just like fighting over a game score; someone says it's a win for A another says it's a loss for A. One smart a$$ says it's a draw but A didn't draw.

2) A wider perspective of God includes that God is an omniimpotent person. After all what's the point of being powerful without being weak. An omnipotent God that can't face weakness is impotent in that regard. I put it to you that God is omniimpotent as well. Just as God has the ability to do any action, he also has the inability to do any action.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.